## Facts

- Todd A. Oliver and Felisha E. Clark were involved in an automobile collision in Omaha, Nebraska.
- Shortly after the accident, Oliver experienced neck symptoms that appeared minor.
- Oliver obtained medical evaluation, including X-rays, and was told there was no fracture or other serious injury.
- Oliver communicated with Clark’s liability insurer about his claim and accepted a small cash settlement.
- In exchange for the settlement, Oliver signed a general release of claims arising from the accident, drafted broadly to discharge Clark and others from liability.
- After signing the release, Oliver’s condition significantly worsened.
- Subsequent medical examinations indicated Oliver had serious injuries that were not suspected at the time he executed the release.
- Oliver sued Clark for negligence to recover damages for his injuries.
- Clark asserted the release as a complete defense, and the trial court entered judgment for Clark on that basis.
- Oliver appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court took the appeal directly after removing it from the Nebraska Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment for Clark was proper when the evidence created a triable question that the parties executed the release under a mutual mistake about the existence or character of Oliver’s injury and did not intend to settle for that later-discovered condition.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment for Clark and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the record presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties intended the release to cover the injury Oliver later claimed.
- Because that factual dispute remained, Clark was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based solely on the release.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings and evidence show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the evidence is viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party with reasonable inferences drawn in that party’s favor.
- A release is generally binding according to its terms, but it may be avoided or limited when the parties acted under a mutual mistake of fact regarding a material assumption on which the settlement was based.
- In the release context, a mutual mistake may exist when both sides believed the claimant had only minor injuries, but the claimant later discovered a serious injury of a character unknown to both parties at the time of settlement and not taken into account in the bargain.
- Broad “all claims” or “unknown injuries” wording does not automatically resolve, as a matter of law, whether the parties meant to settle for a later-discovered injury; surrounding facts and the parties’ intent may create a fact question.

## Conclusion

Oliver v. Clark holds that when a plaintiff produces evidence that a personal-injury release was executed while both sides believed only minor injuries existed, but a serious, previously unsuspected injury is later diagnosed, the effect of the release may turn on disputed facts about mutual mistake and intent, making summary judgment for the defendant improper.


Oliver v. Clark, 537 N.W.2d 635 (1995)